Delhi High Court refuses to entertain PIL by former ED officer against ED and Section 66 PMLA

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking authoritative interpretation of Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) [Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors v Union of India and Anr]..Section 66 PMLA allows the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to share information with other agencies necessary to perform their functions under the law.The PIL filed by former officer of the ED and three lawyers alleged that ED was often putting pressure on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other agencies to file cases for predicate offences so that the ED can invoke money laundering cases under the PMLA.A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the plea noting that an "authoritative interpretation" of Section 66 PMLA can easily be done by a single-judge of the Court.The Court disposed of the PIL with liberty to the aggrieved parties to raise the issue before appropriate courts in appropriate proceedings..During the hearing of the case, the Court also remarked that the people who are involved in these offences have the wherewithal to contest the allegations before appropriate forums.The Court added that the principle of locus standi cannot be relaxed for the "rich and mighty." .The PIL prayed that the High Court should law down the “correct law" under the domain of the PMLA and “clarify & settle the correct status” of the ED.The plea argued that under the garb of sharing the information under section 66 of the PMLA about the alleged commission of offences not covered by the PMLA, ED is filing FIRs with Police under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or is “pressurizing” the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file the same on its complaint/information.It said that ED was acting as the “complainant, witness & the victim” of the alleged non-PMLA offences and at the same time is acting as investigator against the same accused named by it in its FIRs.It is creating a "scandalous and precarious situation", the petitioners stated. .ED's Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the probe agency and contended that the PIL is a private interest litigation. He said that the lawyers who have filed the PIL are already fighting a criminal case before the single-judge where the same law is under consideration. "Today this PIL is an attempt to overreach the pending criminal proceedings. The same issues have been canvassed by same advocates before the single-judge," Hossain said. He added that issue of Section 66 has been settled by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case. However, Advocate SK Srivastava appeared for the petitioners and challenged the assertions. He said that the law does not bar them from filing the PIL before a Constitutional court and that it would be better if a Constitutional court settles the issue. "ED is doing a good job but that does not mean it is above the law," he said.